AGEOD Forums

Howdy all,

Been playing an 1861 Campaign Game as USA. I have captured most of Missouri, Kentuky, and parts of Tennessee, but still do not have Nashville, New Orleans, or Richmond (it is mid to late 1863). I did manage to capture the port city just east of Mobile, Alabama (sorry, I cannot remember the name) after I lost Ft Pickens to the Rebs.

My question is this......Maybe I worry too much, but I have been trying to garrison each city / depot / harbor I capture (which I think is ok) with at least one Militia unit in each place.

However, I worry about putting a unit in each captured region or province to keep it at 100% Union control. As I understand it, each area will eventually go more "loyal" to the capturing side as long as you garrison it with a unit, right?

I fear that I am wasting way too much manpower doing this, and think everyone will agree that I am. So which provinces or regions should I garrison? I think I read somewhere that if the region/province control falls below a certain level, then supplies wont get through, RR's cant be used, etc. Should I just garrison the cities/depots/harbors and along railroad lines??

Thanks for any tips..

As I understand it, unless a combat unit is in the region, (military) control will not change, so once you have control, you will keep it. Stronger units will change control faster.
Loyalty is another matter. It is changed (slowly) by martial law and by the capture of strategic cities.

Supply is routed through regions with more than 25% MilControl. RR use is allowed for the same. Not sure if this starts with 25 or 26% MC - assume the latter for insurance.

Don't worry about Loyalty too much. It'll increase more quickly in cities like Richmond, Nashville, or New Orleans, and much, much more slowly in the rural areas. I've had games where the Albemarle region in NoVA took two years for a 10% shift.

You need greater than 50% Loyalty to leave a town or city ungarrisoned, though - otherwise, you might get a partisan revolt and lose it. Also, you need more than 50% Loyalty in order to reap the benefit of a roof (structure) over your head in winter - with 50/50 or less, I go inside the structure.

According to the manual, you only get revolts in regions with 10% or less loyalty, but partisans (and indians) can take over cities below 50% loyalty to you.

You do not earn VPs from hostile objectives without a garrison, though.

The MC of a region will slowly increase towards the side which has the highest loyalty, so over time an ungarrisoned region with 100% MC will still loss some of the control to a disloyal region. So you will need to keep your RR covered.

Also don't forget that if you are garrisoning VP or NM objective cities in disloyal regions, you have to use cav or line infantry- no militias. Militias can be used to garrison non-VP or non-NM cities to stop them switching sides.

In the 1.14 patch, loyalty doesn't affect MC by and large. I think I saw once that Baltimore began shifting MC towards the CSA when its loyalty was 75% CSA, but that is a very rare circumstance.

deleted

Unfortunately, I can't provide one. It's just something I noticed.

deleted

Per some observations above, yes, I think you are right about the 10% threshold for open revolts. I'd have to look some stuff up, myself.

As a general rule, you just have to keep your eye on the places where there is 50% or less Loyalty - cities and towns, I mean. This where garrison forces come into play. One recent game, I took Fremont (Martial Law attribute) and put him in command of Baltimore, Loyalty was so low there.

Keep a 'rover' or two in hostile occupation areas. Cav with HorseArty is good for this and anti-raiding purposes.

I have had MC slip away in regions because of lack of Loyalty and then re-assert MC in order to keep RRs open or Supply open. It only took a single unit, though, and didn't take long.

Note I never change my Freedoms - always Full Liberties.

Also, to repeat: Loyalty values change fastest in Cities - the bigger the place, the more quickly the numbers change. Rural areas proceed glacially. That's why I say don't worry about Loyalty too much, 'cuz there's not a whole lot you can do to affect it, other than winning battles and winning in general, taking Strategic towns, etc., which is what you want to do anyway.

Thanks for all the info. I guess I will keep units on RR's and in the cities, and shift everyone else up to the Div's and Corps....By the way...I think i have also noticed that if a region along a major river (say, like the Mississippi River) changes sides to CSA...is the USA still able to move supplies along it by river supply in the supply phase?

Just wondering.

KgLorberau

AFAIK, the only way your Supply is interdicted is by a riverine Fort or an entrenched enemy unit at a certain level of entrenchment - not sure if artillery is required for the interdiction. Or a hostile fleet, perhaps. Best to ensure naval control of that stretch you want to use.

I would need to refresh my facts, but I don't think an 'enemy region', in and of itself, interrupts Supply.

Make sure you have river Transports parked next to your bridgehead in order to attract Supply (just like Wagons). And Wagons in the land units.

GraniteStater wrote:AFAIK, the only way your Supply is interdicted is by a riverine Fort or an entrenched enemy unit at a certain level of entrenchment

Presence of ennemy boats will also block supply move along river.

not sure if artillery is required for the interdiction. Or a hostile fleet, perhaps. Best to ensure naval control of that stretch you want to use.

You'll need an artillery unit for river interdiction.

I don't think an 'enemy region', in and of itself, interrupts Supply.

An ennemy region will not interrupts river supply per itself.


Here is what is written in the AACW wicki :

"River supply is completely blocked by the presence of enemy ships (even 1). River supply is also blocked by enemy forts or entrenched (4+) artillery that is capable of passing fire ("bombard" order must be selected). "

enf91 wrote:In the 1.14 patch, loyalty doesn't affect MC by and large. I think I saw once that Baltimore began shifting MC towards the CSA when its loyalty was 75% CSA, but that is a very rare circumstance.

I am glad that someone else noticed that loyalty does not now affect ungarrisoned regions with 1.14. Basically, a region with 95% CSA loyalty will not shift its MC towards the CSA. I was afraid that is was something unique to my setup.

I updated my game to version 1.14 and now notice that I no longer have to keep any troops in areas that I control, except of course for cities where the citizens may "revolt" and reoccupy the town. I usually just put a unit in an area until I have 100 Military Control, even if the loyalty is just 5-10 %, it stays in my control until the CSA sends a unit through it.

I like this, since I no longer need to worry about whole areas reverting to the enemy. I have pushed most of my garrison brigades forward into my Army Divisions and Corps and have made them much stronger. The CSA AI is playing unusually strong, defending Richmond and Nashville, but I did just take Memphis on the Mississippi, as well as Fayetteville in Arkansas.

On a side note....I have a large CSA Army cut off in Nashville, but it is still strong as ever. Won't it eventually run out of supplies?? How long should that take?? I have a Union Army with 3 Corps sitting next to it, but got my butt kicked twice already by the CSA Army....Had to refit and get reinforcements twice to bring the Army and associated independent Divisions back up to strength.

Thanks for any info.

KgLorberau

Each individual unit carries 2 turns of supplies. Supply wagons carry 120 tons of supplies, which will feed 60 elements for one additional turn. Does Nashville have rail or river links to another CSA depot? Depending on the CSA's transport capacity, the army could be fed almost indefinitely unless you shut those links down.

My understanding is that big sources of Supply, like Nashville, cannot be 'cut off.' Places like Nashville are big enough to take care of the garrisoned troops indefinitely. Load as the other side and turn on the Supply filter - the places with big stacks can hold out for a long time.

As I said, that's my understanding - could be mistaken.

Well I must have been doing something right, because I had all of his incoming supply routes captured. I had two large Union River Fleets cutting off the port. And third time is the charm....I managed to pound away two turns in a row and defeated them and captured a ton of prisoners and destroyed even more units... I made a big increase in my NM as well.....Hurray!

That seemed to open a big bottle neck and I then managed to have my Army of the Potomoc take Richmond, Petersburg, Norfok, and trap two large Rebel Armies up by Jamestown. Took Memphis as well, and am pushing fast thru North Carolina south......It is early 1865 and only about 20 turns to go.

I still have not taken New Orleans, Atlanta, or Vicksburg, and the Rebs pushed north and captured St Louis from me (I even had a large force defending, but they captured it anyway....dammit). I had to bring most of my Army of the West back from Springfield Arkansas to Rolla, to stage to recapture St Louis.

Wish me luck.

KgLorberau

Hmmm...Gray - "Help, Mr. Wizard."

I must amend. I do believe sieges are worthwhile. I'm pretty positive I've seen enemy PWR numbers drop in Richmond, but I am talking about a same region siege, up close. AFAIK, large cities cannot be cut off from Supply at a distance, though; they make their own.

Large cities make a limited amount of supply. Washington, for instance, produces 60 GS a turn which is enough to feed about 13,000 troops indefinitely. However, if you were to gain 76%+ MC in Montgomery and Anne Arundel, MD; captured the ports at Port Tobacco and Leanordtown; and blockaded from the sea, I guarantee you that a force greater than 13,000 strong would eventually perish.

The best thing to do is wait for the turn they starve and their strength drops dramatically then assault to destroy regiments and capture prisoners for extra morale.

It can be a pretty effective strategy, but hard to implement. I highly recommend it.

Allright, it's settled then. Isolating a town/city/post will eventually lead to its being starved out.

Works for me - it only makes sense.

If a CSA can blockade Potomac River thats a "bad" union player a "very bad" union player.... "BAD"

I would have used Richmond as an example, but in the game I had open, I was the North so I couldn't see the GS output of Richmond. Plus, there's a lot more regions around Richmond that need to be occupied and I didn't want to type them all out .